For me the red flag is them willing to send this letter to Chase, via snail mail at no charge to you. Nobody gives something for nothing. So I thought, why would they do this? after reading through the form, at the bottom, it looks like one of the companies, who sponsors this site, "Radvocate" seems like they are in the "class action" lawsuit business. https://myradvocate.com/
This site is about having enough potential clients are able to sue Chase at some point in the future, whenever a class action lawsuit comes up - and heck, they even will have a customer list and a relationship with you from sending this "free" letter for you in the past.
Usually in those kinds of cases, the end recipient gets very little - perhaps some subscription to a ID protection service or a few bucks but the firm who runs the class action makes a lot.
On the one hand, maybe it helps keep them honest (they cite Wells Fargo) so its good to be able to. But clearly there is some vested interest here on the part of Radvocate.
Radvocate here:
We do have a vested interest. Over time, we want to be the place you come when you have a dispute against a big company because we'll fight hard for you.
We're excited to partner on this project partly because it is very "on brand" for us from that perspective — we can help people, get our name out there, and shine light on an issue that matters to us. We're a business, but we're also all in this business (instead of some other business) because we want to make the system fairer for consumers.
ETA: Also, to correct one misapprehension: we are not in the class action business. We actually help consumers pursue individual arbitrations. We think more people should know that even if their contract doesn't let them sue, they actually do have a way to assert their power through arbitration. If anything, we'll have more customers for our current business if no one opts out of their Chase clause.
From a "consumer who wouldn't individually sue chase" perspective I see nothing wrong here.
I know many here consider this to be ideological heresy but it's possible to have a transaction where both parties come out ahead and this seems like one of those win-wins to me. They do a little work for you in exchange for putting your name on a list of people they can use in a class action, you might even get $5 or something out of it if they win.
Putting your PII into a random website should be what raises red flags here. I hope they're not storing the account numbers, or at least not storing them with the associated personal details.
> Usually in those kinds of cases, the end recipient gets very little - perhaps some subscription to a ID protection service or a few bucks but the firm who runs the class action makes a lot.
This suggests to me you feel that class action judgments do not adequately compensate claimants. This shouldn't dissuade us from fighting back against businesses who treat their customers unfairly.
The problem isn't the class action lawsuit or Radvocate. It goes much deeper. It's goes to the core of businesses (e.g, banks) who provide critical access to the financial system forcing you, the consumer, to resolve disputes through their shadow justice system in which they pay the arbiters, which have a history of siding more frequently with the corporation.
So the "downside" is that they might ask for your help causing more problems for Chase in the future? I didn't click the link but now I'm going to go sign up!
I don't have direct access to the fulfillment of this particular initiative, but in general we can take advantage of the efficiency of sending multiple legal notices in the same packet. So the cost per individual letter can be much less than one would assume.
> This site is about having enough potential clients are able to sue Chase at some point in the future
...that sounds good to me! I certainly don't have the resources to take Chase to court myself, and who knows, maybe the existence of this class-action-in-waiting will keep Chase from being as shady.
Assuming that you're completely legit and utterly competent, there's still a big security problem here: it's encouraging people to put their PII and CC info into arbitrary Web sites.
On top of that, it's further identifying them as both Chase CC holders and receptive to scams, qualifying them as leads for further phishing/scamming.
Unfortunately this is the problem that Chase created ... we give users a way to download a form letter instead, but were just trying to make it as easy as possible for customers to opt out if they would like to do so
If the problem is writing the letter or stamps, then why not just send the user a postage-paid envelope, pre-addressed to Chase, with a generic letter that she can fill in with her personal information and deposit into the mail?
You should now be wondering how this "service" can be "free". As someone else has figured out, this is a company that wants lists of Chase customers to which they can market their consumer arbitration-related services.
This is interesting since the whole point of opting out here is that consumers want to avoid arbitration and reserve their rights to sue.
Other websites are offering a more sensible solution for those who cannot be bothered to write a letter: templates for a simple letter a customer can just print out, fill in her information, sign and mail.
It seems to me that it's pretty flimsy? In particular:
> To conduct research and to improve and promote our services . We use the information wecollect to conduct research and to improve or enhance and promote our Services.
Both promotion and research are pretty damn broad terms, right?
It's even worse than that. If they try to authenticate you on the phone. They'll suggest calling you back, and they don't know what phone number they'll be calling you from.
They literally ask for their customers to pick up the phone from unknown numbers and give your bank details.
Yes but it’s your Chase account number. If it gets leaked through this service, Chase precipitated that leak through their unethical use of arbitration.
Idk but I only have Chase through Amazon. Chase might get effed, but my Amazon account will probably always be fine.
Under the "What is the actual language in the agreement sent by Chase?" FAQ item, it says --
"Can I (the customer) reject this agreement to arbitrate?
Yes. You have the right to reject this agreement to arbitrate if you notify us no later than 8/9/2019. You must do so in writing by stating that you reject this agreement to arbitrate and include your name, account number, address and personal signature. Your notice must be mailed to us at P.O. Box 15298, Wilmington, DE 19850-5298. Rejection notices sent to any other address, or sent by electronic mail or communicated orally, will not be accepted or effective." (emphasis mine)
How does this service handle the "personal signature" requirement?
I wrote to Chase on their 'secure message portal', which feels like it is straight out of 1995. I told them I'm out of the country and cannot send mail.
I told them that I am rejecting the agreement to arbitrate. I also said that since their message portal feels official, this would be what I would use as proof of my opt out in court, if the need arises. I saved some screenshots as well.
They have updated me once already to say that they are still working on a response.
I just want to point out that, as a user, opting out of this portion of Chase's agreement could result in Chase deciding to close your account. Not advocating what course of action to take, but merely pointing out that there is risk associated with this action.
That being said, I have read through the email from Chase, and there is nothing that explicitly states that they will close it as a result of the user opting out of arbitration.
Does anyone have experience with similar situations with Chase or other banks and agreement opt-outs that they could share?
Yes, just to emphasize this post -- I have read elsewhere that your declining these terms could lead to your account(s) being closed immediately. What makes anyone think they wouldn't do that?
I was surprised when I received the letter explaining this from Chase. I made a mental note to write them a letter and opt-out, which I had immediately forgotten about until now. Thanks to the creators of the site.
Here from myradvocate.com, which is partnering on this project with Zach / HM Bradley. We're psyched for this to go live.
We track news about arbitration pretty closely, and I've been surprised and impressed by how much this Chase issue has "broken through." I no joke overheard a random convo about it on BART on Sunday.
Aside from the issue of trust, the site does a terrible job of explaining how bad arbitration is.
The arbiter is permitted the following:
* To make an arbitrary judgement outside the scope of the agreement.
* The arbiter is not required to follow any law but the arbitration act. They are permitted a manifest disregard for the law.
* The arbiter is not required to be fair or impartial. They aren't a judge.
* The arbiter may be blacklisted by companies if they rule against the corporation. The companies know who rules against them.
* The arbitrations are secret. You may research how the arbiter acted in the past. The company knows, though. You just don't.
To engage in a corporate controlled mandatory binding arbitration is to leave the rule of law and enter into a dystopia where even the courts of law are privatized. Consumer protection laws? Gone. State consumer laws? Gone.
What did your legal counsel say about liability here? For example, what happens if a cardholder who used your opt-out service has a dispute with Chase, and Chase claims they did not receive the opt-out?
What has counsel advised about any risk of federal authorities investigating you as possible CC phishing operation (perhaps initiated by monitoring for bank-phishing-like domain name)? (Obviously you have some defense, but the best case might cost you money and misery.)
Also, do you expect to keep the domain name past an ICANN dispute?
I caught these assholes at Chase doing this and demanded a refund of fees, which of course they provided. They're just testing your resolve, every day:
"JPMorgan agreed to pay $110 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over its procedures for charging customers overdraft fees. It was among more than a dozen big banks sued by their customers for reordering debits from their accounts to maximize the possibility that the accounts would become overdrawn, which would generate more fees."
I know everyones talking about how sketchy the online forms are. But my question is what sketchy practices is Chase involved in that they need this to be part of their agreement. Secondly and its been noted here before why are such clauses even legal? I really hope we can take the concept to court and murder it completely.
> Secondly and its been noted here before why are such clauses even legal?
It's legal because of a staggeringly overbroad reading of the Federal Arbitration Act that the Supreme Court has said is fine and Congress has refused to reign in.
> I really hope we can take the concept to court and murder it completely.
Many will enter, zero will win. Virtually every attempt at limiting the Federal Arbitration Act's scope in legal proceedings has been turned down by the Supreme Court.
So few will opt out, Chase will get what it wants: No customers can make a dispute with chase in a court of law. They cannot band together for gross abuse. They will have achieved removing courts of law from the equation and replacing them with secret privatized courts that do not have to have any regard for the rule of law.
What would be really cool is to see this extended to many types of opt-out-by-email things — I know it's a pretty widely-used dark pattern by e.g. newspapers and spam mail companies.
[+] [-] rkhassen|6 years ago|reply
This site is about having enough potential clients are able to sue Chase at some point in the future, whenever a class action lawsuit comes up - and heck, they even will have a customer list and a relationship with you from sending this "free" letter for you in the past.
Usually in those kinds of cases, the end recipient gets very little - perhaps some subscription to a ID protection service or a few bucks but the firm who runs the class action makes a lot.
On the one hand, maybe it helps keep them honest (they cite Wells Fargo) so its good to be able to. But clearly there is some vested interest here on the part of Radvocate.
[+] [-] mjkornbl|6 years ago|reply
We're excited to partner on this project partly because it is very "on brand" for us from that perspective — we can help people, get our name out there, and shine light on an issue that matters to us. We're a business, but we're also all in this business (instead of some other business) because we want to make the system fairer for consumers.
ETA: Also, to correct one misapprehension: we are not in the class action business. We actually help consumers pursue individual arbitrations. We think more people should know that even if their contract doesn't let them sue, they actually do have a way to assert their power through arbitration. If anything, we'll have more customers for our current business if no one opts out of their Chase clause.
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|6 years ago|reply
I know many here consider this to be ideological heresy but it's possible to have a transaction where both parties come out ahead and this seems like one of those win-wins to me. They do a little work for you in exchange for putting your name on a list of people they can use in a class action, you might even get $5 or something out of it if they win.
Putting your PII into a random website should be what raises red flags here. I hope they're not storing the account numbers, or at least not storing them with the associated personal details.
[+] [-] JMTQp8lwXL|6 years ago|reply
This suggests to me you feel that class action judgments do not adequately compensate claimants. This shouldn't dissuade us from fighting back against businesses who treat their customers unfairly.
The problem isn't the class action lawsuit or Radvocate. It goes much deeper. It's goes to the core of businesses (e.g, banks) who provide critical access to the financial system forcing you, the consumer, to resolve disputes through their shadow justice system in which they pay the arbiters, which have a history of siding more frequently with the corporation.
[+] [-] markovbot|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjkornbl|6 years ago|reply
I don't have direct access to the fulfillment of this particular initiative, but in general we can take advantage of the efficiency of sending multiple legal notices in the same packet. So the cost per individual letter can be much less than one would assume.
[+] [-] ForHackernews|6 years ago|reply
...that sounds good to me! I certainly don't have the resources to take Chase to court myself, and who knows, maybe the existence of this class-action-in-waiting will keep Chase from being as shady.
[+] [-] hnruss|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] besieged|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Chris_Chambers|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ClassyJacket|6 years ago|reply
"We’re a group of like-minded companies who like building things that help people. "
They're just doing this out of the goodness of their hearts!!!
[+] [-] neilv|6 years ago|reply
On top of that, it's further identifying them as both Chase CC holders and receptive to scams, qualifying them as leads for further phishing/scamming.
[+] [-] zbruhnke|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] saagarjha|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 3xblah|6 years ago|reply
People who order stamps online?
If the problem is writing the letter or stamps, then why not just send the user a postage-paid envelope, pre-addressed to Chase, with a generic letter that she can fill in with her personal information and deposit into the mail?
You should now be wondering how this "service" can be "free". As someone else has figured out, this is a company that wants lists of Chase customers to which they can market their consumer arbitration-related services.
This is interesting since the whole point of opting out here is that consumers want to avoid arbitration and reserve their rights to sue.
Other websites are offering a more sensible solution for those who cannot be bothered to write a letter: templates for a simple letter a customer can just print out, fill in her information, sign and mail.
[+] [-] bmer|6 years ago|reply
It seems to me that it's pretty flimsy? In particular:
> To conduct research and to improve and promote our services . We use the information wecollect to conduct research and to improve or enhance and promote our Services.
Both promotion and research are pretty damn broad terms, right?
[+] [-] monksy|6 years ago|reply
They literally ask for their customers to pick up the phone from unknown numbers and give your bank details.
[+] [-] choppaface|6 years ago|reply
Idk but I only have Chase through Amazon. Chase might get effed, but my Amazon account will probably always be fine.
[+] [-] cdubzzz|6 years ago|reply
"Can I (the customer) reject this agreement to arbitrate?
Yes. You have the right to reject this agreement to arbitrate if you notify us no later than 8/9/2019. You must do so in writing by stating that you reject this agreement to arbitrate and include your name, account number, address and personal signature. Your notice must be mailed to us at P.O. Box 15298, Wilmington, DE 19850-5298. Rejection notices sent to any other address, or sent by electronic mail or communicated orally, will not be accepted or effective." (emphasis mine)
How does this service handle the "personal signature" requirement?
[+] [-] mjkornbl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] latchkey|6 years ago|reply
I told them that I am rejecting the agreement to arbitrate. I also said that since their message portal feels official, this would be what I would use as proof of my opt out in court, if the need arises. I saved some screenshots as well.
They have updated me once already to say that they are still working on a response.
[+] [-] SCHiM|6 years ago|reply
AFAIK in the Netherlands oral statements, when overheard by a witness, have the same legal standing as a signed contract.
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kileywm|6 years ago|reply
That being said, I have read through the email from Chase, and there is nothing that explicitly states that they will close it as a result of the user opting out of arbitration.
Does anyone have experience with similar situations with Chase or other banks and agreement opt-outs that they could share?
[+] [-] mjkornbl|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fataliss|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ilaksh|6 years ago|reply
I would actually like to see that service. A website that closes your bank account for you. They can be very tricky when you try to do that.
[+] [-] raxxorrax|6 years ago|reply
This is disgraceful behavior from a bank and they also made clear that they tend to close accounts for arbitrary reasons.
[+] [-] supernova87a|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ziroshima|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjkornbl|6 years ago|reply
We track news about arbitration pretty closely, and I've been surprised and impressed by how much this Chase issue has "broken through." I no joke overheard a random convo about it on BART on Sunday.
[+] [-] kevin_b_er|6 years ago|reply
The arbiter is permitted the following: * To make an arbitrary judgement outside the scope of the agreement. * The arbiter is not required to follow any law but the arbitration act. They are permitted a manifest disregard for the law. * The arbiter is not required to be fair or impartial. They aren't a judge. * The arbiter may be blacklisted by companies if they rule against the corporation. The companies know who rules against them. * The arbitrations are secret. You may research how the arbiter acted in the past. The company knows, though. You just don't.
To engage in a corporate controlled mandatory binding arbitration is to leave the rule of law and enter into a dystopia where even the courts of law are privatized. Consumer protection laws? Gone. State consumer laws? Gone.
[+] [-] asimjalis|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] strangattractor|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neilv|6 years ago|reply
What has counsel advised about any risk of federal authorities investigating you as possible CC phishing operation (perhaps initiated by monitoring for bank-phishing-like domain name)? (Obviously you have some defense, but the best case might cost you money and misery.)
Also, do you expect to keep the domain name past an ICANN dispute?
[+] [-] PunksATawnyFill|6 years ago|reply
"JPMorgan agreed to pay $110 million to settle a class-action lawsuit over its procedures for charging customers overdraft fees. It was among more than a dozen big banks sued by their customers for reordering debits from their accounts to maximize the possibility that the accounts would become overdrawn, which would generate more fees."
[+] [-] mleonhard|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snug|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zbruhnke|6 years ago|reply
Unfortunately Chase forces customers to mail a letter with this information on it so there's not much we can do
[+] [-] linuxhansl|6 years ago|reply
That's a really shady move and I'll take note to avoid any business with Chase in the future.
[+] [-] giancarlostoro|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] techsupporter|6 years ago|reply
It's legal because of a staggeringly overbroad reading of the Federal Arbitration Act that the Supreme Court has said is fine and Congress has refused to reign in.
> I really hope we can take the concept to court and murder it completely.
Many will enter, zero will win. Virtually every attempt at limiting the Federal Arbitration Act's scope in legal proceedings has been turned down by the Supreme Court.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT%26T_Mobility_LLC_v._Concepc...
* https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/american-express...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Systems_Corp._v._Lewis
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_v._Ferrer
[+] [-] dbpatterson|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] llaappqq|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fooey|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevin_b_er|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjkornbl|6 years ago|reply
I've been party to some interesting convos about whether it would be legal for them to do so.
[+] [-] news_to_me|6 years ago|reply
What would be really cool is to see this extended to many types of opt-out-by-email things — I know it's a pretty widely-used dark pattern by e.g. newspapers and spam mail companies.
[+] [-] adzm|6 years ago|reply